192 (202)
Chapter 14
How Christ is our Surety, and what Mr. Baxter says,
as
to this, is examined.
Our
Lord Jesus being called a Surety in the Scriptures, may give us much
satisfaction and clear light, concerning the Doctrine of the Imputation of His
Righteousness, if prejudice and love to our own particular hypothesis do not
blind us. The Apostle tells us, Hebrews 7: 22, that Jesus was made a Surety
of a better Testament (or Covenant, rather) and though the Greek word e1gguoj, rendered Surety, be only in this place found
in the New Testament, yet that can give no colorable ground of exception
against the true and native import of the word, and the truth, thereby held
forth, seeing one sentence of divine revelation should captivate our faith and
judgment, as well as twenty, otherwise all divine revelation, though never so
oft reiterated, will hereby at length come to be questioned. And besides, the
word properly signifies a surety, cautioner, praes, sponsor, fide jussor: e2ggu/n is sponsio, expromissio, fidejussio: hence e2ggua/w sub fide sponsionis
trado, as it were, to deliver into hands, e2ggua/omai spondeo, e2ggo/hsij fidejusso,
Vadimonium, e2gguhth\j fidejussor, vas, sponsor: and whether the word come from e)ggu/j prope, or
from e)ggizw appropinquo,
or from e)n gu/oij in minibus,
the same import and signification is held forth; and the conjunction and
nearness between the Sponsor, or Surety, and the person for whom He is Sponsor,
with the ends, for which he engages himself, who is a Sponsor, is manifestly
held forth: for the word imports one, who of his own accord engages for
another, taking upon him, the cause and condition of that other, and promising
to do or pay what the other was obliged unto, or to see it done, and, thus
engaging and promising, becomes the just and legal debtor for what he has
engaged, and obliged unto the performance. And this sense is both obvious and
generally received by all men; which should satisfy us, as to the acceptation
of the word here, until it be demonstrated, that of necessity it must be taken
in a peculiar and distinct sense, in this place; which yet the scope and
circumstances of the place will not admit; but rather confirm the usual and
generally received signification and import of the word.
This is
also confirmed by the Hebrew bra(f which hath many
significations, all, or most, of which, as some think, may be reduced to two
general heads: one is of mixing things together, or agreeing things or persons
together, by compacts, merchandise, pledges, or caution. Hence it signifies to become
surety Genesis 43: 9, and 44: 22. Proverbs 11: 15, 6: 1,
193 (203)
II Kings
But
Mr. Baxter, in his book against Doctor Tully page 108, in answer to the first
objection, which he there moves tells us, that when Christ is called the fidejussor
of a better Covenant, it seems plain, that it is God’s Covenant, as such; and
so God’s sponsor, that is meant. And for this he cites Grotius and Doctor
Hammond, in their Annotations. Answer: This is the very same answer, that
Socinians give, with whom both Grotius and Hammond do well agree: and it is not
much for Mr. Baxter’s honor, nor for the credit of his cause, that he will
forsake all the orthodox, and embrace rather the Socinians, and such, as join
with them, than abandon what he thinks contributive to his hypothesis. Whether
Christ was at all a Surety, upon God’s part, or not, needs not here be
discussed; some Orthodox being of that judgment, that He was, as we see in Mr.
Gillespie’s late piece chapter 21, others thinking, that He was not, as may be
seen in Dr. Owen’s book of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith. It is
sufficient against Mr. Baxter and the Socinians, to prove, that He was a Surety
and Sponsor for man to God; and this is abundantly made good by what both these
forementioned authors have said, in the books mentioned, that more needs not be
added. But what doth Mr. Baxter mean by God’s Covenant? He can mean
nothing here, but God’s part of the Covenant; and so make Christ only a Surety
for that part. But what ground is there for this in the text, or context? The
Apostle is proving, that Christ’s priesthood (which respects not God towards
man, but man towards God; for every priest is ordained for men in things to
God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sin, Hebrews 5: 1,) is
more excellent than the Levitical, He being made a priest by oath, and a Surety
of a better Covenant, and therefore His Suretyship and His Priesthood must both
respect men, and the things of men to God; or the one should not be a fit
medium
194 (204)
to prove the other; nor should there be any coherence
in the words; unless, with the Socinians, we should pervert the nature of
Christ’s priestly office, and make it to be for God, in things pertaining to
men, contrary to Hebrews 5: 1, and all the use of Priests from the beginning;
as they do, when they make Christ’s priesthood to consist, in His making
effectual to us the promises of God; or in His effectual communicating to us
the good things, promised to us from God; from which Mr. Lawson doth not much
differ, when he says (as Mr. Baxter cites his words) That a priest doth
undertake to procure from God both the confirmation and performance of the
promises to the people; and to that end mediates between both.
He says
next, that Calvin seemed to intimate that, which he thinks is the truth, viz.
that Christ is called e1gguoj of God’s Covenant, from the sacerdotal
appropinquation, mentioned in verse 19. But no such thing appears in Calvin’s
Commentary. And that appropinquation, mentioned in verse 19, is the people
their privilege now under the New Testament. He tells us further, that Marlorat
and others by Sponsor mean a Mediator. And it is true, that the Sponsor
here is a Mediator: but that the word Sponsor here shall denote nothing
else, than what the word Mediator signifies, I shall not readily
believe, without clearer grounds, than any I see yet adduced: for I cannot
think, that the Apostle would make use of a word, which no where else he uses,
and which is no where to be found in the New Testament but here, in a sense,
that it is never found to have, neither in Scripture, nor in the common use of
men. And however; yet it must be granted, that He is such a Mediator, as is a
Priest, and so must offer sacrifices to God for men, and therefore must as well
be a Mediator and Sponsor on man’s part, as on God’s. He says, that Pareus on
the place, calls Christ a Sponsor of the Covenant, quia novum
foedus sanguine & morte sua
obsignavit. But for answer, he may read the same author on
Chapter 8: 1, saying, est & Sponsor foederis spondens Deo populi
nominee fidem & obedientiam, non verbis modo sed & victimis. And thus he distinguishes a Sponsor from a Mediator.
Mr.
Baxter grants (page 109) that a Mediator is not one, but doth somewhat on the
behalf of both parties: but adds that as Mediator, He is, has, does, suffers,
merits, satisfies, so as the representer or person of such a believer, as that
every such person is supposed in Law, to have been, done, suffered, merited,
thus in and by the Mediator, is neither signified by this, or any other text. Answer: Though this cannot be said of a
Mediator, strictly so taken, and no more; yet it may be said of him, who not
only is a Mediator, but also a Sponsor and Surety, as we have several times
explained it. He adds, 2. They that distinguish of a natural and political
person, do but darken the case, by an ill expressed distinction, which indeed
is not of two sorts of persons, but between reality and acceptation, taking
person properly for a natural person: It is one thing to be such a person; and
another thing to have the Act, Passion, Merit, &c. accepted for that other person:
And this latter signifies either, 1. That it was done by the other person
mediately, as being a chief cause acting by his instrument. 2. Or that it was done for that other person by another: the
first is our denied sense, and the second our affirmed sense.
195 (205)
Answer: And I think, (such is the discordance of men’s
apprehensions,) that his explication darkens what is clear enough by the
distinction given. His Reality & Acceptation, is, in our case, as
darkening a distinction, as the others, if not more, and is against the common
sense of the Law, and the plain common sense and understanding of men, when
speaking of law-matters. Who does not understand how the Surety’s payment is
really, in the sense of the Law, the payment of the debtor, and not merely
accepted for him? If the payment were purely accepted, neither could it be said,
that the Surety was anteriorly obliged, nor that the creditor might not refuse
that payment, neither of which can be affirmed. As for the first sense of his
acceptation, we own it not, more than he: and the second is true, but not full
and plain, being only general; nor is it, as thus generally expressed, any
sense of his acceptation: for when two persons are obliged for a sum conjunctly
and severally, and the creditor may distress either for the whole; when one
pays the whole, he may be said to pay for the other; and yet common sense will
not suffer us to say, that his payment was only accepted for the other.
He
tells us afterward, that Sponsors and sureties with us, are of
several sorts, and that they, who lay all upon the very name of a
surety, as if the word had but one signification, and all sureties properly
represented the person of the principal obliged person, do deal very
deceitfully. Answer: But there is no remedy against some men’s censures.
Some will possibly think, that his dealing is not fair, to speak, in the
answer, of sureties representing the principal debtors, when the objection, as
he himself set it down, speaking only of their being one person in Law sense; and
these two are not every way the same; everyone that represents another, is not
his surety, or sponsor; nor doth the surety, in every case, represent the
principal debtor; neither is he said to do. But, sure, it is plain dealing to
make the word Surety, or Sponsor, in that sense wherein it is
always taken by men that use it, until he demonstrate, that of necessity it
must have a peculiar sense, in this matter, and in this place: and it is not
fair, to object deceitful dealing to us, in this, until he hath first
discovered the deceit. He reckons up, three or four various things, in which
persons may become sureties, as debt, punishment, duty, and the like; but to
what purpose, I know not. Doth he think that we make Christ such a surety, as
agrees in all things with every surety among men? We know, there never was, nor
never will be such a surety, as our Lord Jesus is: A Surety, notwithstanding, we
acknowledge him to be; because He is so called: and in what respects He is a
surety, we know from the Scriptures, where that is abundantly declared, and not
from the simple name of a surety. The name tells us, that that must be said of
Christ, which agrees to all sureties, or is commonly acknowledged to agree unto
them; and that is, that they, in so far as they are obliged, or have obliged
themselves, whether before or after the principal debtor stood obliged (for
this makes no difference as to the obligation Instit. fidejus, & ff.
eod. l. & 11.) are one person in law-sense with the principal debtor;
so that their payment and satisfaction is acknowledged in Law,
196 (206)
as the payment and satisfaction of the principal debtor’s.
His novices, that look into Calv. Lex.
Jurid. for Fidejussor & Sponsor, will find
nothing contrary to this; Yea they will find, that fidejussor dicitur, qui pro alio fidem suam obligat,
& fide sua, id est, periculo
suo esse jubet, quod alius debet; and
that, fidejussor proprie
dicitur debitor; and that even fidejussor conditionalis nomine debitoris continetur;
& fidejussorem proprie esse debitorem fere omnes tradunt, quia jura eum
plerumque appellant debitorem. The
same is to be seen in Spigelius. As for that, which
Mr. Baxter adds, that fide jussor non est conveniendus, nisi prius principali debitore Convento, it neither alters the case, nor was it universally so,
but only in some certain cases, as he might have read in the same place. So
that it still holds true, that the sponsor and the debtor are one person in
law; and that so, that if the debtor pay, the sponsor is free; and if the
sponsor pay the debtor is free. See Instit. lib. 3.
Tit. 30. quibus modis tollitur obligatio
& l. 13. §si fide jus. sor; D de Acceptil. Where it is said, that the debtor is liberated, if the sponsor give only
that, which is called, solutio
imaginatia.
There
must be (says he) some what more than the bare e1gguoj, once used of Christ, as Mediator of God’s Covenant; or
the name of a Surety as now used among men, that must go to prove, that the
Mediator and the several sinners are the same legal persons in God’s account. Answer: What he means by God’s covenant, he would do
well to explain. That the name e1gguoj is used of Christ, as
Mediator, if he takes this as reduplicatively, he should prove. When he
says, the Mediator and the several sinners are the same legal persons,
it is ambiguously uttered, and no clear declaration of our mind. But as to the
thing, we would fain know a reason, why we may not take this word, in its
common acceptation among men, seeing there is nothing in Scripture to the
contrary? Yea, though this Greek word be but here only found; yet, as we saw,
we have a Hebrew word of the same import, several times used in the Old
Testament; and the whole matter, that we seek after, clearly held forth thereby,
if the places be but looked into.
To put
a close to this, we would call to mind that five-fold law identity and
sameness, that is between Christ the surety and sinners, for whom He satisfied,
mentioned by worthy Mr. Rutherford, in his treatise of the covenant part 2,
page 251, which are these.
1.
Though physically the surety and the debtor be two different men; yet in Law
they are one and the same person, and one and the same legal party, and the
same object of justice, who so in Law pursues the Surety, does also pursue the
debtor.
2. The
debt and sum is one; not two debts, not two ransoms, nor two punishments; nor
two lives to lose, but one.
3. It
is one and the same solution, and satisfaction; there cannot in law-justice
come another reckoning, dying, and payment asking, after the surety hath paid.
4.
There is one and the same acceptation, upon the creditor’s part; if he accept
of satisfaction in the payment made by the surety, he cannot but
197 (207)
legally accept of the Debtor, and cannot pursue him in law,
but must look upon him, as no debtor &c.
5. It
is one and the same legal effect. Christ crucified in the Spirit and risen again, I Timothy 3: 16, and we in Him, as in the
meritorious cause, are legally justified.
Mr.
Gillespie in his late piece, chapter 21, hath several things, which will both
clear up and confirm what is said; we shall mention only a few, pages 373, 374.
He tells us, [that 3. Suretyship imports not only a voluntary obligation for
another person, but also union of parties, and assumption of the condition of
that person, in the law’s sense; so that the surety and debtor are but one
party in law: therefore say the Jurists, fidejussor
proprie dicitur debitor. Christ, by
His Suretyship did not only take our natures upon Him, but He took our
condition upon Him. He put His name in our bond, that
the law might reach Him for our debt. 4. It imports a communion between the
debtor and the cautioner, whereby as the debt of the principal debtor, becomes
the debt of the surety and affects him; so also the satisfaction and payment of
the surety and his discharge and relief, becomes the satisfaction, discharge
and relief of the principal debtor. Christ’s Suretyship imports not only a
union of parties and conjunction of interests and condition with his people;
but also a communion with debtful broken man, resulting from His bond of Suretyship;
whereby as upon the one part our debt becomes His entirely, as the jurists say
of all sureties, singuli, in solidum
tenenter: so upon the other part His
satisfaction and discharge become ours II Corinthians 5, last, Galatians 3: 13. 5. It imports a commutation, surrogation,
or substituting of one in the room of another; and so Christ was substituted in
our stead and room, as
198 (208)
Christ our Surety hath charged Bonds and obligations
with us, and puts out our name, and puts in His own, in the bloody bond of the
Law, that the debt, satisfaction and curse may be upon Him alone Galatians 3:
13, Isaiah 53: 5. 2. Among men, the creditor hath it in his choice, which of
the two he will seize upon, the Surety, or the debtor, as he sees it best for his
satisfaction: but it is not so here, for the Lord, the creditor hath
declared, that He will take Him to
Christ for all; and hath determined, that all the satisfaction shall be made by
Him: and Christ the Surety is content that it shall be so, and that the poor
broken creature shall go free, and no execution of the bloody bond of the law
shall pass against him, he being a bankrupt creature, which hath obtained a
liberation, as where there is cessio bonorum Psalm 89: 19, Hebrews 10: 7, Romans 8: 1, Isaiah 53:
6. Among men, usually the principal debtor is first convened for the debt,
before the Surety be pursued: But it is not so here, the curse of the Law, and
the execution of the bond thereof doth not first strict upon us, and then
afterward upon Christ, to seek from Him what it cannot find in us: But the
Lord, the Creditor, having astricted Himself to the Cautioner, the Law stricts
first upon Him; and can never come to strike against the believer, unless it
should not find complete satisfaction in our Surety, which is impossible Isaiah
53: 8, Galatians 3: 13. 4. Among men the debtor is the principal bondsman, and
his obligation and bond is the principal obligation; and the Sureties
obligation is but as accession to it, for strengthening the security: but here
the Surety is the principal debtor; and by His bond of Suretyship, He hath
changed the nature of the believers bond and obligation, and put His own name
in it, so as He is become the principal debtor. His Suretyship hath swallowed
up the debtor’s obligation to satisfy justice, the Surety being the Head and
Husband of the poor broken debtor, Romans 7: 4, and having changed the bond of
satisfaction, and put out our name, and put in His own, whereby He hath
transferred the debt upon Himself, as principal debtor, Hebrews 10: 7, 8, 9.
Among men, usually the broken debtor’s name stands still in the bond, even
after the responsal Surety hath intervened: But here Jesus, the Surety of the
New Covenant, when He put in His own name, He puts out our names, that the Law
might reach Him, and might not at all reach us. He wrote Himself the sinner
legally, and wrote us righteous persons. II Corinthians 5: 21, Jeremiah 50:
20.]